In this sample, the partisan split is D+9 compared to D+8 four years ago, and the GOP is five percentage points smaller than in 2008.

Over in the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost looks at recent Ohio polls and “finds Gravis, Washington Post, and Fox basically see a replay of 2008 while Rasmussen and the Purple Poll see roughly something in between 2004 and 2008.” They envision Democrat turnout being on par with last cycle or even better . . . and this surge of Democratic enthusiasm comes at the same time the president has lost considerable ground among independents. Possible? I suppose, but again, why?

Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.

Three factors that are quasi-defenses of the current pollsters:

1) Perhaps conservative or Republican-leaning voters are more likely to flip between identifying themselves as independents or GOP. Perhaps these are Tea Party conservatives fed up with a GOP they find too “establishment,” etc. If the Democratic share of the vote were stable, it would just mean voters are shifting between these two other self-classifications.

2) Party ID solidifies as Election Day gets closer. Someone noted yesterday that a voter is more likely to self-identify with a major party just before or just after they’ve cast a vote for a major party’s candidate. The polls in late October may have higher percentages of voters identifying with the GOP, the Democrats, or both.

3) Conversely, in an extremely negative campaign environment, voters may be reluctant to identify with either party; a view of “a pox on both your houses” may make some voters prefer to identify as independents. So perhaps self-identified independents’ share of the vote is going to be higher this cycle than in 2008.

Notice that in Florida, Romney’s winning independents, 49 percent to 46 percent; in Ohio, Romney is leading independents 47 percent to 46 percent (although that’s down from a 48–41 lead in late August) and in Pennsylvania . . . well, Quinnipiac didn’t provide the breakdown of independents in the Keystone State.

Looks like the pollsters are pushing an agenda, rather than doing research.

Apocalypse

09-30-2012, 12:49 PM

You make the claim the Pollsters are the ones guilty of pushing an agenda, but you have to remember, they are simply the employees of those who hire them to do the polls to begin with. And with any job you do, you do as your employer tells you.

In all of them, look at who is paying for those polls.

Ohio New York Times/Quinnipiac - You don't think the NYT's is pushing a poll that shows obama is ahead in hope of helping rally support?

Those who hire the pollsters get to lay out the field requirements they are looking for. The sample field, time polls are done, area they are done, and so forth. The pollsters simply do as they are told, or they know they won't get hired again.

We won't be seeing reliable polls for likely 3-4 more weeks. Thats when the pollsters will want accurate results to the elections or fewer people will want to hire them for being far off. No one remembers the polls before the elections, only those of/at the time of the elections.

Elspeth

09-30-2012, 04:02 PM

The polls are a way to create a sense of inevitablity. They must be ignored.

Apocalypse

09-30-2012, 08:09 PM

The polls are a way to create a sense of inevitability. They must be ignored.

Right on the nose.

Take for example where I work in a meat dept. Right now we have loads of people coming in buying up bacon like mad.

Why?

Because on a lot of talk shows and some news stations, they keep repeating that come next summer bacon will be scarce and thus high price.

Its a self fulfilling prophecy.

If they say it will be that way. And keep repeating it. Hopefully people will start to believe it and it will become true.